Swine Flu Kills Obese People Disproportionately 661
Philip K Dickhead writes "Bloomberg is reporting that the World Health Organization discovered a single, surprising characteristic that's emerged among swine flu victims who become severely ill: They are all fat. Infected people with a body mass index greater than 40 suffer respiratory complications that are harder to treat and can be fatal. The virus appears to be on a collision course with the obesity epidemic. WHO officials are gathering statistics to confirm and understand this development. 'It's very likely that if we went back retrospectively and looked at people who did poorly during seasonal flu, what would shake out is that obesity would be one of the risks.' Fat cells secrete chemicals that cause chronic, low-level inflammation that can hamper the body's immune response and narrow the airways, says Tim Armstrong, a doctor working in the WHO's chronic diseases department in Geneva."
Confuses cause and effect (Score:2, Informative)
Swine flu is a serious thread to people who are already chronically ill. If you are seriously ill, you are likely bed ridden and pumped with cortizone, steroids and other drugs. And as a result, of course you have a poor body mass index. Its a miracle you are even alive. Swine flu comes along and is the final straw, your body can't take another illness.
Re:Confuses cause and effect (Score:1, Informative)
No, it doesn't. Read the article.
They ran tests on mice and proved that it's just being overweight that's the factor. If you read the article, you'll note that all the deaths that didn't involve chronic illness have one common factor: the people who died were obese.
Not all (Score:5, Informative)
Summary: "They are all fat."
Article: "They are fat. [...] In Canada's Manitoba province, three out of five people treated for the new flu strain in intensive care units are obese."
If this virus killed only fat people that would be astounding. If it kills more than it's share of fat people, that's still interesting (despite all the "being fat is bad duh!" comments here) but less flashy.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who "can not" lose weight is, quite simply, doing something wrong. Sure, they could be part of the .001% of people with a gland problem but let's be serious and talk about the overwhelming majority.
If you weight (far too many)lbs and restrict your dietary intake you WILL lose weight. It's pretty straight forward honestly. Exercise greatly helps of course. And for the 'my poor ankle' whining comes back around - there are people with NO LEGS that are still healthy. Clearly a bad ankle is not a barrier to avoiding obesity.
There are a TON of other excuses and all of them are just that - excuses. If you want to be healthy, in shape, or just plain old 'not fat' then make it a priority. If catching the new episode of MTV Real Life Ethiopia or the taste of a big mac are more important than losing weight then, chances are, it will not work.
As for the story - it's another amusing 'well duh'. Next thing they'll post that old and immunodeficient are more likely to die from the flu (oh, sorry...meant to specify swine flu even though it's nothing more than different strain of flu) and bla bla bla. Of COURSE less healthy people are higher risk. They're also higher risk for ... well most other things.
Someone get back to me when the swine flu deaths are more than 5% of total flu deaths or when the evil swine flu increases the overall number of yearly flu deaths beyond the usual year-to-year variances. The whole swine flu nonsense is manufactured news.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:2, Informative)
BMI is inversely proportional to height. So, I think you mean a 5-foot tall, heavily-muscled man.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently not according to you. Since you claim zero calorie drinks cause you to gain weight.
Actually, that's not what the GP said.
He said that the zero Calorie drinks had a side effect of causing the rats to eat more (and thus increase their Calorific intake)
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:4, Informative)
Artificial sweeteners (and some non-artificial sweeteners like fructose) are believed to do two things:
The statement about calories in vs. out does hold true, but there are foods that change the amount of energy that your body actually uses (both increasing and decreasing it), which complicates the equation greatly---sugars (both natural and artificial), caffeine, tryptophan, calcium, magnesium deficiency, etc. Caloric intake versus typical calorie use is still a pretty good predictor, though.
Re:A reasoned discussion (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I know. However, we're talking about morbid obesity, not the fact that not everyone is going to be an Olympic gymnast.
Yeah we're also talking about bodies that work very differently.
Yes, because when talking about a problem, you always talk solely about the edge cases and never the vast, vast majority.
Have you taken a look at the stats? We're not just talking about edge cases. THAT is the problem. THAT is why obesity itself is being called an epidemic. Don't let facts distract your ranting though.
How much compassion do you feel for someone who just is too lazy to do the simplest things to keep themselves healthy?
Your car analogy stinks. People are not cars, and if they were they wouldn't be the same make model and wouldn't require the same fuel or maintenance. People who go to great lengths to be healthy are often thwarted by things beyond their own control including their lot in life (circumstances) and their own biology. YOU have a body that works well and no issues with apetite or excercise so you refuse to even consider that others might find it not only more difficult but near impossible.
Sure, syousef, no email or website given. Since you apparently care so much about usernames, I'll go with "root."
STILL posting as AC. And still coming up with this. Then you're casting aspersions because I won't give you my home address. You're completely irrational and unreasonable.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:1, Informative)
I'm going to call bullshit on this, it's fucking impossible to NOT lose weight in a week if you are "working your ass off", you're certainly not working you ass off if you're not losing even half a pound or 1 pound in 7 days. Losing weight DOES require some amount of willpower and definitely requires a commitment hence (by and large) one is responsible for one's weight.
EVEN on the nonsense reality TV shows contestants do work hard for the week (and are constantly monitored so cheating is unlikely) and STILL manage to sometimes put on weight. You can cry BS until you go blue but you've clearly never had major weight issues. You don't seem to understand that the body can use the few calories it gets a day first, and that some of the components of that energy burning come from water and air. It's not magic and these people don't violate conservation of energy. It's just that food - fat and carbs - is ONE component in the way the human body works. That's an evolutionary development. It takes a LONG time to starve. Your body doesn't simply give out in a day because you're not fed.
One cannot just excuse oneself unless one has a serious medical condition, but even those that are sick (your arthritis in your leg/angle) can do other exercises. For instance when I was lifting free weights and benching you still burn and awful lot of fat without having to move around that much. What matters is expending energy.
Benching weights increases muscle mass which will actually raise your BMI. You need a cardiovascular workout. To burn energy you need something that increases your breathing and makes you sweat and burn calories quickly. Suggesting benching weights as a way to lose weight is insane.
Now do I take some responsibility for my weight. Sure. Absolutely. Do I think that it's as easy for me to lose weight as a good portion of the population. Hell no.
The biggest thing is monitoring your appetite, no amount of exercise will help if you're over-eating and taking in more energy then you're burning off. The army did a study a long while back that showed just this: Taking in too much energy negates the weight loss benefits of exercise and you don't have to starve youself either, just limit yourself to 1500-1800 cals/day and keep track of it on a site like http://www.fitday.com/ [fitday.com]
Yes, and most of us want to join the freaking army, eat rabbit food and excercise 2-3 hours a day for the rest of our lives. Yeah, that's real sustainable.
You clearly know nothing about weight loss.
The truth is many people who are overweight have never been thin for most of their life and got fat fairly young and developed a victim psychology because of bullying/social prejudice.
Yet the bullying is socially accepted as you're proving right this instance. Not only that but as they get older they're preyed upon by the weight loss industry etc. In other words you're beating people down then wondering why they don't raise themselves by the bootstraps and make a huge effort just to lead semi-normal lives.
There's only so much you can do to excuse yourself from being overweight.. I agree there are many different body types and some of us store fat easily on the smallest amounts of food, but many of us that store easily barely exercise.
A doctor once was giving a talk about lecturing other doctors with regard to telling their patients they must lose weight to avoid the various complications that arise from being obese. He told them that they know about long hours and hard work, so they should strap an extra 20kg to themselves, and go about their 12-16 hour days, then when they get home try and put in 30-60 minutes of excercise and see how much they feel like excercise.
It's a viscious circle. The more weight you put on, the harder it is to start and continue a weight loss regime. And the older you get the more your body starts creaking (especially if you're unfit) responsibility you have and the less likely you are to k
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:5, Informative)
Losing fat comes down to a simple equation. If calories in is less than calories burnt, you WILL lose weight. Its as simple as that.
This is widely accepted conventional wisdom about losing (or gaining) weight. And it does just seem right. After all, you're punishing two of the seven deadly sins (gluttony and laziness) in a most fitting manner. People who can't control their lust for food and their own laziness get what they deserve. It is just so.
Science magazine reporter Gary Taubes published an article the New York Times Magazine titled: "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" He later expanded that article along with others he wrote (including an analysis of the science and politics that resulted in current U.S. Government dietary advice) in a book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the best action is to not drink sugary drinks at all - but if you absolutely have to have that Coke, then have one with real sugar in it - and be aware of the additional calories you are eating. At least it wont make you hungrier, as the artificially sweetened drinks do, according to that study I linked.
You have no idea.
Lots of fat people suffer from insulin issues, so actually they (us) shouldn't eat sugar at all.
In my case, I had dieted a lot, and tried exercising, but just reducing intake wasn't doing the trick.
I started an Atkins-style diet, with a lot more calories than I was used to, and now I am 50 pounds under my original weight, and 40 pounds above my ideal weight.
I also drank LOTS of diet coke.
The thing is that fat people bodies work differently. You need to understand _why_ you are fat, and then fight it.
In my case, it is high insulin production, and after losing 40 pounds I started medical treatment with metformine, which helps me a lot against rebounds.
That idea of reducing calorie intake seems like a good idea in paper, but I don't think it works in practice.
The human body is too complex. It doesn't respond well to uninformed direct manipulation. The best thing is to get an endocrinologist, and do as they say.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Informative)
B) A low carb diet is not in any way related to being a dehydrated diabetic.
Your logic that being a dehydrated diabetic is deadly means that cutting most of the sugar from your diet is also deadly is simply bizarre. It is like saying that if A+B=C Then X+Y Must equal chicken.
So, yes. The claim that cutting sugar out of your diet will kill you is an urban myth. Conversely, I have met many people who have become very ill from an all carb diet. Usually, combined with a low calorie diet. You know, exactly what is commonly recommended by the "Eat Less, Exercise More" crowd.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:3, Informative)
Um, losing weight can be simple, but generally the "exercise more, eat less" argument will fail. If you want to lose weight, keep in mind the following:
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Informative)
You do understand that the different hunger feeling comes from the fact how much people have got used to eat, right?
No. It's not. When I lost weight and was having a large bowl of salad and a piece of lean chicken or steak (no bread or other carbs) I would always go around feeling hungry. ALL THE TIME. FOR MONTHS ON END. Now after a while your stomach can't take the food. If you eat a little more than you usually do, or if you eat anything with a tiny bit of fat or oil you feel ill the rest of the day. BUT YOU STILL FEEL HUNGRY. That's how it was for me. I kept that up for maybe 8 months. I took an extra day off work every week (Try working when you're hungry to the point of distraction).
I'm tired of fools who automatically assume every fat person that's had trouble simply hasn't tried hard enough.
Here are some long term stats for you:
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/6/620 [jacn.org]
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:4, Informative)
As a nerd who has just lost 35kg (thats > 70lb for you americans); I'd just like point out that the resultant physical changes from weight loss and exercise are not unencumbered.
I'm now angrier; I'm now constantly hungry. I have no energy. I can't focus. I'm not getting the stupidly large amount of calories that my body is used to and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to compensate at the moment besides eating more cheap calories. My work and personal life are suffering all because I decided to put the food down and start jogging.
And yes, I'm scheduling time to see a doctor and all of those specialists which I'm sure I'll be referred to. The fact still remains - I may look better, but I feel like shit.